Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 9087337" data-attributes="member: 22779">I'm a little confused though.&nbsp; You said:Which sounds like you are actually discounting what the books say.&nbsp; I would argue that if you find that the adventures are at odds with the rulebooks, then it's more likely your interpretation of the rules is not the same as the game designer's interpretations.&nbsp; The only way that published adventures would be at odds with the actual rulebooks is if the writers of the adventure didn't understand the game.&nbsp; Considering the scrutiny that most modules face, I find that a&nbsp; position I don't really agree with.That's why I do struggle in these conversations though.&nbsp; For example, you'll often hear about how old school games are very low magic items.&nbsp; Your fifth level character was lucky to have a +1 sword.&nbsp; But, then I look at the actual play examples in the books and the modules written by the same people as the rule books, and they are absolutely chock-a-block with magic items.&nbsp; Which then spins off the argument - &quot;oh, well, players don't find the treasure that's in the adventure, it's well hidden&quot;.&nbsp; Which spurs actually looking at the written adventures and realizing that nope, most of the treasure isn't hidden (although, yes, some is).&nbsp; Most of it is not only very easy to find, but, often really obvious as well - magic swords do glow after all; that potion or scroll isn't really all that hard to figure out that it's magical. Now the argument is, &quot;Oh well, modules don't count.&nbsp; I never used them and modules don't actually follow the rules&quot;.&nbsp; That's a pretty bold claim from someone who says they don't actually run modules.&nbsp; I would like to see some pretty strong examples of modules not following the rules before I'd buy that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 9087337, member: 22779"] I'm a little confused though. You said: Which sounds like you are actually discounting what the books say. I would argue that if you find that the adventures are at odds with the rulebooks, then it's more likely your interpretation of the rules is not the same as the game designer's interpretations. The only way that published adventures would be at odds with the actual rulebooks is if the writers of the adventure didn't understand the game. Considering the scrutiny that most modules face, I find that a position I don't really agree with. That's why I do struggle in these conversations though. For example, you'll often hear about how old school games are very low magic items. Your fifth level character was lucky to have a +1 sword. But, then I look at the actual play examples in the books and the modules written by the same people as the rule books, and they are absolutely chock-a-block with magic items. Which then spins off the argument - "oh, well, players don't find the treasure that's in the adventure, it's well hidden". Which spurs actually looking at the written adventures and realizing that nope, most of the treasure isn't hidden (although, yes, some is). Most of it is not only very easy to find, but, often really obvious as well - magic swords do glow after all; that potion or scroll isn't really all that hard to figure out that it's magical. Now the argument is, "Oh well, modules don't count. I never used them and modules don't actually follow the rules". That's a pretty bold claim from someone who says they don't actually run modules. I would like to see some pretty strong examples of modules not following the rules before I'd buy that. [/QUOTE]

Verification